Make vs n8n: which automation tool is right for you?
Credits vs executions, hosted vs self-hosted, and a 10-step workflow priced on both.
Make and n8n are the two automation tools people move to when Zapier gets too expensive or too limited. Both have a visual builder, both handle branching and loops, and both connect to almost anything with an API. The big differences are how they bill you, where they run, and how technical you need to be.
The quick decision
| If you... | Pick | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Have no developer and want nothing to maintain | Make | Fully hosted, friendly visual canvas |
| Run long workflows with many steps | n8n | One run costs the same whatever the step count |
| Must keep data on your own servers | n8n | Free self-hosted Community Edition |
| Build AI agents with memory and tools | n8n | Agent, memory and tool nodes built in |
| Want to move fast on a few complex automations | Make | Quick to build, easy to read and debug |
How they bill you
- Make uses credits. Most module actions cost one credit, routers and error handlers cost none, and AI and code steps can cost more. The Free plan includes 1,000 credits a month, and paid plans start at about $9 to $12 a month billed yearly for 10,000 credits. Unused credits expire at the end of each term.
- n8n uses executions. One full workflow run is one execution, however many steps it has. Cloud Starter is €20 a month billed yearly for 2,500 executions and Pro is €50 a month for 10,000. The self-hosted Community Edition is free, and you pay only for your server.
Pricing side by side
| Make | n8n | |
|---|---|---|
| Free option | 1,000 credits a month | Self-hosted Community Edition |
| Entry paid plan | Core, about $9 to $12/mo yearly, 10,000 credits | Starter, €20/mo yearly, 2,500 executions |
| Next plan | Pro and Teams | Pro, €50/mo yearly, 10,000 executions |
| What is counted | Each module action | Each full workflow run |
| Self-hosting | No | Yes |
| Code steps | Limited, and cost extra credits | JavaScript or Python in any workflow |
Check the live pages: Make pricing and n8n pricing.
Make in practice
Make shows your scenario as connected bubbles, so you can follow every branch, filter and loop at a glance. It is a good fit for operations people who think visually and want reliable hosted automations without touching a server.
- Strengths: a clear visual canvas, low cost per action, strong data tools for splitting and reshaping data, and no hosting to manage.
- Weak spots: costs climb with long workflows, credits expire each term, and frequent scheduled checks can use credits even when nothing has changed.
n8n in practice
n8n looks like a node editor. It feels a little more technical, and it rewards that with control: run it on your own server, drop in code when you need it, and build AI agents that call your tools.
- Strengths: per-run pricing, free self-hosting, code steps, an HTTP node for any API, and strong AI agent features.
- Weak spots: self-hosting needs someone to set up, secure and update it; fewer ready-made app connections than the biggest platforms; team features such as SSO and Git version control need a paid license.
A worked example: a 10-step workflow, 2,000 runs a month
Say an order comes in and your workflow runs 10 steps: check stock, create an invoice, update the CRM, notify the team, and so on. It runs 2,000 times a month.
| Usage per month | Plan that fits | |
|---|---|---|
| Make | About 20,000 credits (10 per run) | A higher-credit Core tier or above |
| n8n Cloud | 2,000 executions | Starter (2,500 executions) |
| n8n self-hosted | 2,000 executions | Free, plus your server |
These are estimates from published prices. Halve the steps and Make's bill roughly halves; n8n's stays the same.
Common mistakes
- Self-hosting with no owner. Someone must keep n8n patched and backed up, or it will fail at the worst moment.
- Polling too often on Make. Use instant webhook triggers so credits are not spent on empty checks.
- One huge workflow. Split big automations into smaller ones that are easier to test and fix.
- No error alerts. Add a failure notification on every important workflow.
FAQ
Is n8n cheaper than Make?
For long or high-volume workflows, usually yes, because it charges per run. For short workflows with few runs, Make's entry plans are very cheap and need no hosting, so the difference is small.
Can I move from Make to n8n?
Yes, but you rebuild the workflows; neither imports the other's format. Document each trigger, step and data mapping first, and the rebuild goes quickly.
Which is easier to learn?
Make, for most non-technical users. n8n is approachable too, but self-hosting and code steps assume some technical comfort.
Which is better for AI agents?
n8n, for most teams, thanks to its agent, memory and tool nodes and per-run billing. Make also has AI modules, but long agent loops add up in credits.
Final verdict
If you want a hosted tool you never have to maintain and your workflows are moderate in size, choose Make. If you have technical help, long or busy workflows, strict data rules or AI agents in mind, choose n8n. Comparing Zapier too? Read our Zapier vs Make vs n8n guide.
Want it built and maintained for you?
We build and look after automations on n8n and Make, from AI lead follow-up to custom AI systems. Book a free strategy call and we will tell you which tool fits and what it will cost.
Not sure which one fits your business?
We build automations on all of these every week. Tell us what you want to automate and we will tell you which tool, what it costs, and whether it is worth doing.
Book a free strategy call